In 2007, Sen. Jonathan A. Harris, 5th Dist., and Rep. Beth Bye, 19th Dist., proposed a pilot program to install traffic cameras along Route 44 where it crosses Avon Mountain. S.B. 439 got through the planning and development and transportation committees, but was voted down at the judiciary committee.
Speaking in favor of the bill, West Hartford Police Chief Jim Strillacci said:
This bill would allow that technology, which is a factor in so many aspects of our lives, to save lives by improving driver behavior. There are automated traffic enforcement systems which can measure a violator's speed with radar or laser, multiple lanes, both directions at once.
They can be out there 24 hours, seven days a week. They don't get sick. They don't take vacation days. So they can be more vigilant that any police officer, even the most dedicated one.
If we couple this enforcement with warning signs and publicity we hope that the effect will be that the drivers will actually slow down rather than giving out a lot of tickets. We want them to slow down voluntarily.
We want them to realize that there's a place that they can't afford to speed and therefore they'll drive more safely. As a police chief I get more complaints about traffic than I ever do about crime.
There is a good reason for this. People are very seldom touched personally by crime. They don't get mugged, they don't burglarized everyday.
But everyday they step out their door they get in their car and they're surrounded by traffic. And they see violations. They feel the effects of traffic congestion. Careless driving causes death, causes injury, causes damage far more than crime does in our community.
This is an opportunity to use a 21st century solution to what's a perennial problem for us, to create an oasis of safety on what is now a very dangerous road.
In 2008, Governor Rell proposed implementing a similar program along a stretch of I-95 in Old Lyme. In her State of the State address, she (ominously) warned:
To those who use this congested highway as their personal speedway, we're going to see you, we're going to stop you, and it will cost you.
(APPLAUSE)
I am hopeful that this program will prove to be successful and that we will be able to add additional locations for camera radars in other parts of the state. I see some of you smiling. Do not be out on I-95.
Threats aside, Carol Leighton from the Connecticut Citizens Transportation Lobby gave some good reasons for implementing the program:
This pilot program would be established in southeastern Connecticut in the area where the driver of a tanker truck and two state residents were killed in an incident that closed the highway for hours last November. The cameras will allow the state to capture images of speeders and mail tickets to them.
Our group has been advocating for the introduction of safety cameras in Connecticut for several years. Such technology is already in use [in] 35 communities in the United States and many more locations worldwide.
I don't know if you know that in England, there are over 6,000 of these road safety cameras. And at the installation sites, speeding has been reduced 30% and fatalities 42%. Over in the six years over 2 million speeders have been charged and over $200 million in fines have resulted.
And in one other location, just for another example, in Victoria, Australia, within three months, the number of drivers triggering the photo radar, the cameras, that number decreased by 50%. It is a deterrent . . .
I think in a state notoriously slow to use new technology, this would be an important step forward, and promises significantly safer highways.
Despite the governor's backing, S.B. 41 did not make it out of committee. The legislators were concerned about the ramifications for civil liberties stemming from the proposal. (Here's the ACLU's take on the 2008 bill, but see also the D.C. Court of Appeal's decision finding no constitutional violation from the District of Columbia's traffic camera system)
Bookmark this post with:
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment